The General Relations of the Geologist To Exploration And Development
The economic geologist is more vitally concerned with exploration and development than with any other phase of his work. This comes closest to being his special field. Here is a fascinating element of adventure and chance. Here is the opportunity to converge all his knowledge of geology and economics to a practical end. The outcome is likely to be definite one way or the other, thus giving a quantitative measure of the accuracy of scientific thinking which puts a keen edge on his efforts. It is not enough merely to present plausible generalizations; scientific conclusions are followed swiftly either by proof or disproof. With this check always in mind, the scientist feels the necessity for the most rigid verification of his data, methods, and principles.
The general success of the application of geology to exploration and development is indicated by the rapid increase in demand for such service in recent years, and by the large part it plays in nearly all systematic and large-scale operations. The argument is sometimes made that many mineral deposits have been found without geologic assistance, and that therefore the geologist is superfluous. The answer to this argument is that there are often hundreds of "practical" explorers in the field to one geologist, and that in proportion to numbers the story is quite a different one. The very fact that many large mining organizations, as a result of their experience, now leave these matters of exploration and development largely in the hands of geologists, is a tribute to the usefulness of the science. Also, it is to be remembered that not all applications of geology are made by geologists. It is hard to find a prospector or explorer who has not absorbed empirically some of the elements of geology, and locally this may be enough. Very often men who take pride in the title of "practical prospectors" are the ones with the largest stock of self-made geological theories.
During a prospecting boom it is not uncommon for speculators and promoters to attempt to discount geologic considerations where these run counter to their plans. The catching phrase "bet against the geologist" has a broad appeal to an instinctive preference for the practical as opposed to the theoretical. If the public would stop to note the character of the support behind the geologist, including as it does the larger and more successful operators, it would not be so ready to accept this implication.
Another aspect of this question might be mentioned. There is scarcely an oil field or mining camp in the world without a cherished tradition to the effect that, prior to discovery, the mineral possibilities had been reported on unfavorably by the geologists,—again implying that success has been due to the hard common sense of the horny-handed prospector. These traditions persist in the face of favorable geological reports published before discovery; they are natural expressions of the instinctive distrust of any knowledge which is beyond the field of empirical experience. In many cases the discoveries were made long before geologists appeared on the scene. In others, possibly one or two geologic reports were unfavorable, while many were favorable. In the aggregate, there can be no question that, in proportion to the scale of its use, geological advice has had more than its proportion of success.
Even under the most favorable conditions, the chances against the success of an individual drill hole or underground development are likely to be greater than the chances for it. The geologist may not change this major balance; but if he can reduce the adverse chances by only a few per cent, his employment is justified on purely commercial grounds.